1
   

Science proving the existence of God?

 
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 11:37 am
Such outrageous hubris! Henceforth in my infinite wisdom and love and compassion, I abandon thee to a fate of obscurity Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2006 06:14 pm
akaMechsmith:

Here is what I got from Wikipedia regarding Relativistic Doppler Effect:

Relativistic Doppler effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

In physics, the relativistic Doppler effect is change in the observed wavelength and frequency of light due to the relative motion of source and observer when taking into account the Special Theory of Relativity.

In general, the wavelength λ measured at the source and by the distant observer can be expressed as a ratio:

z+1 = \frac{\lambda_{observed}}{\lambda_{emitted}} = (1-\beta cos{\theta})\gamma

Where:

\beta cos{\theta} = \frac{v_\|}{c} = velocity directed towards the line of sight of a photon (v_\|) divided by the speed of light in proper time (c)

γ = Lorentz factor due to the total velocity of the object (not just in the line of sight)

z is the redshift.

For the classical Doppler effect arrangement when the observer and the source are approaching each other and there is no perpendicular movement, the equation reduces to:

z+1 = \frac{\lambda_{observed}}{\lambda_{emitted}} = \sqrt{\frac{1-\frac{v}{c}}{1+\frac{v}{c}} }

Where:

θ = 0

v is the velocity of an object approaching a photon, in meters per "coordinate" second.

c is the speed of light which equals 299,792,458 meters per "proper" second.

Contents
[hide]

* 1 Speed of light is consistent with proper time
o 1.1 The geometry of a light interception
* 2 Etc.
* 3 See also

[edit]

Speed of light is consistent with proper time

In the Special Theory of Relativity, space and time are not absolute. Neither is speed, which is something like a rotation in space-time, so that two observers travelling at different velocities have different points of view regarding which sets of points are simultaneous with another point in space and time.

A moving observer will go under velocity time dilation so that for every second that passes by in the coordinate time, the processes that animate the observer undergo fewer cycles for a given coordinate time interval, and thus a proper time is established. No matter which direction the observer is travelling, the speed of a photon of light is always consistent with the proper time of the observer's clock (more accurately the photon's clock if you consider general relativistic time delay effects and/or variable index of refraction, variable magnetic permeability, and variable permittivity). A change of speed by the observer does correspond to a sort of rotation in which the time and space axes are different. An application of the Lorentz transformation shows that the effect is that the frequency, and therefore energy, of the photons is affected (because coordinate time/proper time increases): photons from any approaching source are increased in energy and photons from a receding source are reduced in energy: this is more intuitively satisfying.

It is similar to the change in kinetic energy of an object due to the thing or person throwing it moving relative to the observer. This is the relativistic Doppler effect.
[edit]

The geometry of a light interception

The following equation is derived from the Lorentz factor.

\left( \frac{d\tau}{dt} \right) ^2 + \left( \frac{v}{c} \right) ^2 =1

The equation above is the same as the one for a circle.

Where:

\frac{d\tau}{dt} is equivalent to proper seconds per coordinate second, the reciprocal of the Lorentz factor. \frac{d\tau}{dt}=\frac{1}{\gamma}. A large value of this is consistent with opposite of time "dilating", the opposite of "slow-motion" time - the equivalent of fast-paced "space".

dτ is the interval of proper time (i.e. of time-dilated time).

dt is the interval of coordinate time (i.e. of non time-dilated time).

dτ < dt

v < c

After mutiplying both sides by c2 we get the following:

\left( \frac{c d\tau}{dt} \right) ^2 + v^2 =c^2

\bar{c}^2 + v^2 =c^2=constant

\bar{c} is the velocity of the light in meters per coordinate second, relative to the observer which moves at a velocity of v in meters per coordinate second.

c is a constant measuring the speed of light in meters per proper (observed) second.

This equation also has the form of a circle, a shape where each point on the line has a common radius with the center.
[edit]

Etc.

In this article the term light is intended to mean any electromagnetic radiation, which is a particle that has no rest mass and which must always travel at the speed of light (when in a vacuum). Measurement of a single photon is always done using proper time, and thus the speed of that photon is always measured to be equal to c, no matter how one moves, because the movement itself influences how the photon progates within the observing equipment as well as the molecular processes that is within it.

The article on electromagnetic radiation also gives the relationship between frequency and energy of a particle.

Here is the link:

Relativistic Doppler Effect
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jan, 2006 05:34 pm
Talk 7200,

Thanks for the link. However you notice that this refers to only the "Doppler" part of the red shift. ie. relative motion.

However there is also a gravitational effect. The gravitational effect is widely considered to be cancelling (red shift out, blue shift in). However it seems aparent (to me at least) that the wave length will be affected due to the varying densities of space between the locations at which the emitter and receiver are located. This is a reflection of the amount of space-time between them. And perhaps also a reflection on the relative densities of space. Since the densities of space from our point of view are a function of the rotational motion of the galaxy and vice versa I would suspect that the same phenomen would happen to another galaxy.

The further separated the more spacetime between them. The more massive the emitter the more spacetime (due to gravity) between it and us.

There are several quasars out there. At least one is associated with a galaxy that red shifts indicate are at very different distances.

If the Doppler effect is the only cause of redshift then this could not occur. It does Question

If the gravitational red shift occurs then that anomaly becomes simply a reflection that quasars are very concentrated portions of matter and energies resulting in an immense "gravity well".

But if you calculate a gravitational redshift and deduct it from the observed redshifts I suspect that the "Expansion of the Universe" will go away.

Thats what I mean by "The gravitational redshift works so well it'd be a shame if it didn't exist" Very Happy

I am going to check out your link now. Thanks for listening, M.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:44 am
I believe your notion of a "gravitational red shift is at variannce with the known laws of physics, including general relativity. Gravity distorts space, but that is a very different thing from the rather odd notion you are putting forward here.

Moreover you ignore other rather compelling arguments for the current cosmological model, particularly including the relative abundance of light elements in the universe.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 07:23 pm
George,

1. I am not intentionally ignoring any arguements. But I do reserve the right to weight them as I see fit Exclamation

2. A gravitational red shift has been shown to occur and g_day even referred to it on this thread.

3.Since the 'Einstein-Eddington observations in South Africa about 1919 or so showed that starlight was affected by gravity.

4.Since many of the Hubble pictures show "gravity induced lensing", Einstein Crosses and other phenomenon that are purported to be gravity's effect on light.

5.Since "Black Hole" theories seem to have been substanciated. In other words there is probably such a thing as a "black hole".

6.Since the red shift datum often do not correlate very well at some various locations in space.

7. Since the gravitational red shift would not conflict with the "principles of cosmology" with respect to uniformity on a sufficiently large scale.

8. Since the testing of the "Big Bang" theories require a departure from any kind of physics that we have ever heard of. They also must include a description of space and spacetime and time itself that seems to be at variance with observations or even common sense.

9. Since the light elements abundance, questions, and observations can probably be answered equally well by another theory.

10.You could also probably answer all the heavy element questions using a black hole or similar device. (I don't know, I've never tried, don't intend to.)

I cannot find a quantfication of the gravitational red shift anywhere. Since every theoretical physicist that I know of including Einstein, Hawkings, and Sagan, has remarked on, shown the existence of, or theorized as to its effects, I find it remarkable that nowhere do I find a reference that actually attempts to measure or describe it outside brief allusions to the Scwartzchild Radius.

I don't think that my notions are at variance with the known laws of physics. I only take the known behavior of light or EMR and extrapolate it a bit further than is commonly published.

OK, I may be paranoid but I certainly am allowed to wonder until somebody shows me or I figure it out myself. Confused

If you are at all interested and have some competency in hopefully calculus I will be glad to outline the problem.

Since the observed wavelengths of light also involves our notions of time, mass, and inertia it does get a bit complex. To much for me anyway Exclamation At least for now. Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
atypical10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2006 08:18 am
I somewhat believe in both,I've read books on Darwin's Theory and I am interested in studying it more.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 03:18 pm
Nice to hear that atypical.

No belief required for science though, just an understanding of the facts and the scientific method....then choose to reject them in favour of fantasy if you wish.
0 Replies
 
jefferywinkler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 01:19 pm
There never existed a person who thought there was a God, and it would not be possible for such a person to exist. Everyone knows this, and everyone knows that everyone knows this. This fact is easy to prove, as I do in my article on religion which you can read on my homepage.

Edit [Moderator]: Website removed
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 01:18:11